New Delhi: In a bid to make the legal profession “fair, transparent and accessible to all”, the Ministry of Law & Justice Thursday published a draft of the Advocates (Amendment) Bill, 2025, that adds fresh provisions prohibiting boycotts or abstention from courts’ work.
It also broadens the definition of a legal practitioner and expands the Union government’s influence over the legal profession. “The Department of Legal Affairs is proposing to amend the Advocates Act, 1961, to address contemporary challenges and meet the needs of a growing nation,” the Press Information Bureau (PIB) said in a statement.
The draft bill comes a little over a year after the introduction of the Advocates Bill, 2023, which was passed to weed out “touts”, repeal obsolete colonial-era laws and reduce the “number of superfluous enactments in the statute books”.
Members of the public have also been invited to offer their comments and feedback to the 2025 bill by 28 February. The bill will then be presented in Parliament. ThePrint looks at new provisions of the bill and how they are being received by the legal fraternity.
Objective of draft bill
According to the PIB, the 2025 bill seeks to amend the Advocates Act, 1961, which was introduced to “regulate the legal profession, safeguard client interests, and elevate the professional standards of advocates”.
It was under the original 1961 law that the Bar Council of India and state bar councils were established to oversee the conduct and discipline of lawyers across the country.
By way of its February 13 press statement, the law ministry said that these amendments “aim to align the legal profession and legal education with global best practices”.
“The reforms will focus on improving legal education, equipping lawyers to meet the demands of a rapidly changing world, and raising professional standards,” the PIB said, while adding that the ultimate goal is to ensure that the legal profession contributes to the creation of a just and equitable society, and a developed nation.
Broader definition of ‘legal practitioner’
The 2025 bill broadens the definition of ‘legal practitioner’ under Section 2(i) by including advocates working for foreign law firms under its ambit.
This means that a ‘legal practitioner’ will mean any advocate or law graduate “engaged in the practice of law before courts, tribunals or quasi-judicial forums or doing legal work in any private or public organisation including but not limited to statutory and autonomous bodies, domestic and foreign law firms and corporate entities”.
However, speaking to ThePrint, senior advocate Chander Lall said that all foreign lawyers working in India should come under the ambit of the act “as lawyers cannot advertise in India”.
Lawyers are banned from soliciting work through advertisement by the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975.
Chander Lall said, “This puts Indian law firms at a huge disadvantage, as people sitting in Dubai can advertise the work of Indian law firms, but Indian firms cannot do it themselves. If foreign law firms are to practice in India, there must be a level-playing field.”
No more calls for boycott
Under the Advocates Act, 1961, Section 35 deals with the punishment of advocates for misconduct. However, the new bill proposes a provision—Section 35-A—that will prohibit boycotts or abstentions from court work. “No association of advocates or any member of the association or any advocate, either individually or collectively, shall give a call for boycott or abstinence from courts’ work or boycott or abstain from courts’ work or cause obstruction in any form in court’s functioning or in court premises,” says the provision.
A violation of this will be treated as misconduct under Section 35, and the violator will be liable for disciplinary action under the Advocates Act and the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975.
However, it specifies that this does not apply to advocates participating in strikes that do not “impede the administration of justice” and intend to bring attention to “legitimate concerns about professional conduct,” such as working conditions or administrative matters.
Such strikes may include symbolic or one-day token strikes as long as they don’t disrupt court proceedings or violate clients’ rights, it adds.
“The proposed bill also introduces stringent oversight and stricter regulations governing advocates,” Delhi-based lawyer Aayushi Mishra told ThePrint. “Any advocate who calls for or participates in any form of boycott or abstinence from courts’ work shall be deemed guilty of misconduct, warranting immediate disciplinary action including but not limited to instant removal from the state roll.”
Centre’s influence over bar councils
Mishra also added that the proposed law mandates the inclusion of three members nominated by the Union government to the Bar Council of India, thereby granting it greater influence over the profession.
According to the proposed law, the Union government will also be allowed to give directions to the Bar Council of India as may appear necessary for executing any provisions of the Advocates Act or rules made under it under Section 49 (the general power of the Bar Council of India to make rules).
Similarly, the Union government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this act, including those concerning any matter on which the Bar Council of India or a state bar council has the power to make rules.
Such rules could relate to qualifications and disqualifications for membership of bar councils and the manner in which the Bar Council of India may exercise its supervision and control over state bar councils, among other things.
Mandatory registration of advocates
A new provision in the 2025 bill—section 33A—deals with the registration of advocates with a bar association where they usually practice or intend to practice law. “An advocate enrolled with the State Bar Council engaged in or intends to practice before a court, tribunal or Quasi-Judicial forum or any authority shall get himself registered as a member of the Bar Association where he ordinarily practices or intends to practice law,” it says.
In case any advocate leaves a particular Bar Association and joins another due to a change in his place of practice or his field of law, he shall inform the Bar Association of which he is a member within 30 days, it adds. Furthermore, a limitation has been imposed on advocates exercising the right to vote in more than one Bar Association.
How legal fraternity is reacting
Advocate-on-Record and Supreme Court lawyer Usman G. Khan told ThePrint, “It is no secret that strikes and boycotts by lawyers ultimately harm the litigants,” while adding that the Supreme Court has consistently held this view. “Our justice delivery system already suffers immensely from delays, and court strikes only add to the misery. The addition of Section 35A in the Advocates Act will hopefully reduce such acts of scuttling the legal process and strengthen people’s confidence in the legal process,” he said.
Senior advocate Vikas Pahwa said the right to boycott courts is not a fundamental right in India. “While we the lawyers have freedom of speech and association under Article 19, these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling in Harish Uppal v. Union of India, he said, “It held that court boycotts and strikes by advocates are impermissible as they obstruct the administration of justice and infringe upon litigants’ rights.”
Pointing out that the amended Advocates Act reinforces this position through Sections 35A and 9B, Pahwa said, “I feel we (lawyers) have a vital role in upholding justice and advocating for legal reforms; any protest against judicial misconduct must be pursued through institutional mechanisms rather than disrupting court proceedings.”
Underlining that strikes don’t suit a profession like advocacy, senior advocate Lall said, “Administrative issues should be resolved without resorting to strikes, as they take away from work and are a waste of resources. I don’t understand how a strike will help, it’s just a holiday. We call it a noble profession, but aren’t allowed to put our work on a business card, solicit, or even openly advertise.”
On the aspect of foreign firms being given legal recognition, Delhi-based lawyer Aayushi Mishra said, “The proposed legislation gives the Centre additional power to make rules governing the entry of foreign law firms or foreign lawyers in India.”
The expansion of the definition of “legal practitioner” to include people working in corporate entities and foreign law firms will serve to recognise the realities of the legal profession in the twenty-first century, added Supreme Court lawyer Sarim Naved.
“There is a need for recognition of those lawyers who are not practising before courts but are still part of the legal profession providing legal advice and strategies to many kinds of persons and organisations,” Naved added.
(Edited by Sanya Mathur)
Also Read: One does not have to be an atheist to be an independent judge, ex-CJI Chandrachud tells BBC